|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
||It is requested that an image or photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The Free Image Search Tool may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.
- 1 NPOV dispute [Examples of authoritarian states]
- 2 Amending wrong edit
- 3 No title
- 4 Spain under Franco
- 5 Brave new world predicted
- 6 Indonesia
- 7 Recent edits
- 8 Citing Communism as Authoritarian
- 9 How about the broader meaning of authoritarianism?
- 10 Electoral authoritarianism
- 11 Text dump - uncited
- 12 Authoritarianism and the Economy
- 13 The Middle East and Middle Asia
- 14 Religion and authoritarianism
- 15 Correlation does not imply causation
- 16 Sources
- 17 Authoritarianism other than government
- 18 FYI
- 19 Pejorative term?
- 20 "rule of man over the rule of law"
- 21 "a bureaucracy that operates independently of rules"
- 22 Democracy is authoritarian
- 23 China
- 24 Tyranny by the Majority
- 25 First phrase nonsense ?!
- 26 Biased and Western Point-of-View Article.
- 27 Recep Tayyip Erdoğan
- 28 China under Mao Zedong
- 29 The Southern States of the USA until the late sixties
The citations for a lot of these countries are very opinionated and demand review.
An example is Egypt's citation which is this news article reporting an unfair trial which took place which saw the execution of a great many of Mohamed Morsi's supporters. This is barely relevant and certainly cannot be listed as the citation to prove the validity of Egypt being on this list of examples.
I am not disputing whether or not Egypt should be on the list of example Authoritarian states (because I do agree with it being there), I just think this source should be fixed as well as for other countries which may have similar, faulty sources. Apologies if this was the wrong way to start this discussion or bring this to your attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Selim (talk • contribs) 05:48, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Amending wrong edit
I delete all parts of definition concerning "source of power" which were added by me previously. I found I wrongly interpreted ideas of Dr. C.W. Chan from the University of Hong Kong at that time. He only defines dictatorship in terms of "source of power" but I incorrectly mixed up the concept of dictatorship and authoritarianism. The contrasts should be democracy to dictatorship, and liberalism to totalitarianism. Salt 10:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
"Another country once considered authoritarian is Spain, under Franco. Some considered Totalitarian are Cuba and North Korea."
My god aren't Nazi Germany and USSR under Stalin more obvious examples than Cuba and North Korea ?
Ericd 21:15 Apr 10, 2003 (UTC)
- Yes, but the article classifies these as totalitarian, rather than authoritarian. I think these two articles should be merged: totalitarianism is simply the extreme case of authoritarianism.
- -- Anon, 220.127.116.11
- I'm not sure IMO totalitarianism has a strong ideologic support while authoritarianism is more pragmatic.
- Is authoritarianism equal to non-democracy or not is an absolute monarchy a form of authoritarianism ?
- Ericd 22:04 Apr 10, 2003 (UTC)
- What would be your classification of an enlightened despotic ruler who allows for e.g. freedom of religion and to speak your own language, versus someone who does not, like Franco or perhaps Constantine (in the interests of forcing some national unification of a disparate population) or someone who wants to dictate all the aspects of your life and mold you into a drone to do his bidding such as Hitler, Stalin or Mao?
- The first can approach a democratic rule in that it caters for the interests of everyone and is flexible (more libertarian) while the last is completely different. The rarity of totalitarian regimes suggests these are significantly different from authoritarian regimes to be classified differently. IMHO.
- Truly libertarian regimes are rare (do they exist for long at all?) because every community needs some sort of rules and enforcement in order to endure. Otherwise it risks destruction from within.
- A society without any rules and enforcement is known as Anarchy. This is different from a Libertarian regime. Also I believe that the phrase "Theocracies are always Authoritarian" should be changed to something less absolute. Finally I believe that a connection to Fascism should be made as these two go greatly together. Bengaska 02:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- Truly libertarian regimes are rare (do they exist for long at all?) because every community needs some sort of rules and enforcement in order to endure. Otherwise it risks destruction from within.
- Anonymous (18.104.22.168), 4:15 July, 2003 (UTC)
"Giant Flying Brick Vandalism" I will put it back in order. Find the culprit. Hadrian
A number of related pages have just been edited by the same, anonymous user (22.214.171.124), all illiterately, some PoV. I've just reverted this article to the last unaffected version. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:23, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I've just tidied the English of the article, and found this sentence: “In addition, critics of the thesis of developmental authoritarianism point to India, which had impressive of social forces that forced a transition to democracy.” Something's obviously missing from it, so I've removed it until I (or someone else) can rewrite it so that it makes sense. It was also inserted oddly between two sentences concerning S.E. Asia, so it would need to be moved somewhhere more sensible. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:52, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Spain under Franco
I politely ask that the statement "For example, the Roman Catholic Church can be accurately described as authoritarian; however, in modern times it lacks the means to use force to enforce its edicts and is not a totalitarian establishment." be changed. It suggests that the Roman Catholic Church would use oppressive means if it had the power to do so. Such a suggestion is entirely a matter of oppinion.
- I think it is clear that in the past the Catholic Church did use oppressive means to enforce edicts. However you are right that it the reason for the change is not the absence of 'the means to use force', but rather the modern perception that the use of such force is unacceptable has led to a change in the willingness of the Church to use force and hence led to a change in policy. I will npov the article accordingly. Ppe42 11:25, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
I believe the section titled "Actions of authoritarian governments" is completely unnecessary in this piece. The author of it seems hung up on two current liberal agendas in the United States, namely gay rights and striking down of the Patriot Act. The section is something that in as little as 10 years will look sadly pithy, dated, and agenda driven, which should never be true of an honest definition. In fact, using the logic of these "examples of authoritarianism", any government that has any kind of law is "authoritarianistic" so long as someone wishes to break that law without facing enforcement. The examples used under democracy, indeed show democracy (or in this case, the US Republic)in action by its very definition... majority rule. I am not trying to defend democracy, I am just noticing unrelated agendas in this section. I would bet money that the bit was written by an outspoken gay liberal American, frustrated by the current state of his country. Any takers? (Personally I feel that England's government structure is better (in theoretical terms) than that in the US, though I think it would be better still if the royal family played a larger philosophical role.)
Should discuss other relationships that are authoritarian. For instance parent-child relationships. Corporations are also very highly authoritarian as they are coerced cooperation. Thanks.
Brave new world predicted
Wikipedia is Big Brother, you sit there editing the past to conform to what is commonly assumed to be correct, you've started the end of human civilisation and freedom! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 126.96.36.199 (talk • contribs) 07:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Im a french student living in indonesia. I've lived in Indonesia for 15 years now and doubt that indonesia is an authoritarianist nation. It definitely used to be under Suharto's regime, but it is no more. This is a free country and probably the only free and democratic country in south-east asia. Thailand is authoritarianist though, well at least if people believe that Thailand is free country, then Indonesia should also be considered a free country.
Could someone change the map since I don't have the technical ability to do it...
Thankyou I think you took that book 1984 a little to seriosly. (anonomus) Oops I meant to put this on the one ubove.(anonomus)
I removed following text: However, this can be contested because even allegedly individualistic societies such as liberal democratic states show authoritarian tendencies where individuals are ranked in social hierarchies and democratic decisions are made by powerful leaders. Authors such as Noam Chomsky have commented on this asserting that presidential elections are funded by concentrations of private power and run by the public relations industry.
First sentence is original research, and second is irrelevant to the subject. The source , as I can see, doesn’t support claim in the first sentence, nor it mentions "authoritarianism". -- Vision Thing -- 20:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- The above is actually a common POV, and WP:CITE is not an offical policy, while WP:NPOV is. 188.8.131.52 21:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
hi boys its matt clarke
Citing Communism as Authoritarian
National Communism (e.g. Stalinism) is Authoritarian. International Communism is not. I am inclined to change this citation. Muigwithania 22:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree totally, Communism itself, at least the society advocated by Karl Marx is not an authoritarian system at all. As a matter of fact it is described as a stateless society run by workers, sort of a collective direct democracy. Of course this has never been acheived and outside of the Anarchist experiment in Spanish Catalonia during the civil war never even attempted. Still the original reference to Communism was far to simplistic and vague, so I altered it. As a distinction should really by made between Marxism and Marxism-Leninism. I realize that most communists see Leninism as being the practical application of Marxism, not all communists do. Examples being Left communism, Luxemburgism, etc. and of course governments led by Marxists that have supported political openness. (Canadianpunk77 (talk) 22:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC))
Marxism states that it begins as authoritarian (revolutionary socialism) and ends as anarchy (socioeconomic anarcho-socialism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 03:58, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Authoritarianism is also a large factor in the development of belief systems. Reliance on authority as a source of knowledge leaves societies open to all kinds of distortion of the truth.
The obvious 1984 (George Orwell) reference to Doublespeak is only caricaturized portrayal of our current reality - media tells us what's going on - and we believe them.
The Internet is a force for moving towaard more first-hand access to info - but credibility of all netinfo is questionable! Where does that leave us? I'm not sure. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Robdashu (talk • contribs) 01:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC).
This article mentions democratic authoritarianism. I am far from an expert on the issue, but I wonder if the name of this type of authoritarianism shouldn't be changed. There seems to be a growing body of literature that refers to such regimes as "electoral authortarianism." The Journal of Democracy had a series of articles using the phrase "electoral authoritarianism," including Elections Without Democracy: Thinking about Hybrid Regimes. The International Political Science Association held discussions on electoral authoritarianism. Also, there have been a number of books published on the series, such as Electoral Authoritarianism: The Dynamics of Unfree Competition. Applying the theroy to country studies, there is The Fujimori Legacy: The Rise of Electoral Authoritarianism in Peru. I think that the basic idea is that many scholors believe that such regimes shouldn't be called "democratic authoritarianist" or democratic anything because in reality they don't deserve to be called democracies. All in all, someone might want to at very least add the phrase to this article, and perhaps even start an electoral authoritarianism article. --Descendall (talk) 10:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Text dump - uncited
Authoritarianism and the Economy
In the late 20th-century political elites in East and Southeast Asia argued that countries with authoritarian regimes were more likely to be economically successful than democratic countries. Examples given to support this argument were South Korea, Singapore, Malaysia, and Taiwan all of which were authoritarian and experiencing a period of rapid growth.
The belief that authoritarian governments were likely to economically out-perform democracies was reconsidered in 1997 during the Asian financial crisis.
There are of course many instances of authoritarian nations that have not encountered rapid economic growth. A good historical example is Spain in post-war Europe. More recent examples of poor economic performance in nations with authoritarian regimes are Myanmar and Zimbabwe.
Despite the Asian financial crisis the idea of developmental authoritarianism remains an attractive route to economic expansion in many developing nations. The Communist Party of China, which presides over the world’s fastest growing economy, uses this concept today as justification for its authoritarian rule.
While the link between political authoritarianism and economic growth may not be precisely understood, thinkers in anarchist and anti-authoritarian traditions have examined the "economy" itself as a realm of authoritarianism. In particular, similarities between business corporations and the state have often been highlighted. Both institutions are hierarchical, collective entities with clearly delineated chains of authority and command.
The Middle East and Middle Asia
The 21st century has the Middle East region with the highest concentration of authoritarian nations in the world. This is usually explained by reference to the region's cultural specificity (for example Bernard Lewis - Islam and the West) or its political economy.
It is true that historically the region has experienced an authoritarian tradition as exemplified by the Ottoman (13th Century to early 20th Century) and Mamluk (13th Century to early 16th Century) Empires; however, using culture to explain the region’s current political situations is rather a blunt tool. Cultural explanations fail to allow for regional diversity, are unable to account, or indeed allow, for progression and via their narrow focus fail to see the correlates between this region and other developing nations such as the People's Republic of China which have only relatively recently become members of the global political economy.
A Political Economy Approach
Political economists argue that the predominance of authoritarian regimes in the Middle East can be explained by reference to the regions economic development. Internal and external factors need to be considered and the interaction between them if a coherent argument is to be made.
External factors include a consideration of the regional and national impact of colonialism and the point at which each of these nations joined the global economy. Internal factors such as indigenous social structures and pre-existing modes of production also need to be explored.
The territorial boundaries of most Middle East nations were determined by Colonial powers in the inter-war period following the break-up of the Ottoman Empire. Roger Owen argues that this is an important factor when considering the relationship between the state and its citizens. Clearly an imposed nationhood does not carry with it a presupposition of unity. Colonised nations were required to contribute to the economy of their governors. Stability and therefore control of the populace was an important feature of the state infrastructure. In the Colonial period, ‘typically, some two thirds of public expenditure was security related.’ (Owen. 1993. p10). The historical legacy of colonialism for the citizens of Middle Eastern states was therefore one of imposed unity, economic exploitation and a state intent on controlling rather than consulting its populace.
The Global World Economy
Colonial states were turned into the globe's producers of raw materials. They serviced and supported the capitalist economies of their colonizing country. Dependency Theory adherents therefore suggest that economic under-development in the Middle East is a result of entering the global economy in a subordinate position. In other words exploitation rather than cultural specivity.
A very different economically based theory is the "no representation without taxation" theory. This posits that people will generally only demand control over their government if they are taxed; so that a government which can fund itself and pay for civic services by exporting oil or other natural resources, rather than taxing the people, can survive as an authoritarian regime.
Indigenous Social Structures and Modes of Production
The authoritarian traditions of the Middle East have changed and evolved over time as the social, political and economic situation has changed. Political economists such as Nazih Ayubi argue that systems of patronage and clientelism are not the result of essential cultural traits but rather an outcome of articulated modes of production. The co-existing and articulated modes of production Ayubi refers to are those of capitalist waged labour and those indigenous to the Middle East for example artisans, merchants, crop-sharing.
Clientelism, which Ayubi describes as, ‘informal ties in which services (and some goods) are exchanged between people of unequal status’ (Ayubi. 2001. p169), as a concept has developed to accommodate these articulated modes of production in a macro-political setting. The resulting political structure is authoritarian corporatism. Political and economic power resides with the state which adopts the role of arbiter and mediates between a variety of social groups. With no class hegemony civil society becomes subordinate to the state.
The article should maybe show the controversial relationship between religion and authoritarianism. Many authoritarian countries such as medieval France, the Byzantine empire, Spain's Franco, contemporary Iran and tribal India are or were known to have relation-based nationalism and authoritarianism. ADM (talk) 14:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Correlation does not imply causation
I'm confused. The criticism part seems to contain alot of A happens B happens... *hint hint* A caused B. I'm not especially happy about authoritarianism, I personally hate it but I don't know. The criticism part seems to be full of implications?
Lets say its a fact that melons are smaller under regimes with authoritarianism, and bigger under democracies.. then surely this does not automatically mean authoritarianism shrinks melons?
The sources here are a mess. Many of the links are now broken ("The Democracy Advantage", for example) or direct to unrelated pages (like "Towards a Democratic Peace?"); these need to be fixed or removed. If somebody wants to give this article a proper cleanup, going through the sources will be necessary. -Michael Sappir • (Talk) 01:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Authoritarianism other than government
The intro today says:
- Authoritarianism describes a form of government characterized by an emphasis on the authority of the state in a republic or union.
But this is a markedly narrow idea of "authoritarianism"; really only one use of the word. "Authoritarianism" describes a style of social behavior found in many spheres of life: notably in family and sexual relations, in corporate or workplace management, and in religion. The notion of authoritarian family structures is found in historical studies of the family (see pater familias) as well as in the psychoanalytic literature (Freud and Reich) -- and, of course, in feminist and anarcha-feminist literature (see patriarchy).
If people who watch this page are also interested in how Wikipedia is governed, be sure to check out this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Advisory_Council_on_Project_Development . Slrubenstein | Talk 13:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Would it be fair to describe 'authoritarianism' as a pejorative term, used only by people who are opposed to it? Or are there any groups or individuals that identify themselves as 'authoritarian'? Robofish (talk) 15:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Does something become pejorative because those who are described as such do not wish to be so described? —Zujine|talk 15:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
"rule of man over the rule of law"
This is nonsensical! Law is man-made, any "ruling" proclaimed by anyone with the power to do so (which is another dubious problem) is both a rule by "man" and by "law." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlon (talk • contribs) 18:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- The only explanation I can think of is that the leaders aren't bound to the law of the land, but even then it's not necessarily true. The entire Characteristics section seems to contain a bias that violates the Neutral Point of View and should probably be flagged, several philosophers advocated authoritarian rule, especially for larger states, Montesquieu being particularly notable for suggesting that democracy only suited smaller states, Monarchism was most suited to medium sized states, and Despotism was most appropriate for large states. See Despotism#History Pongley (talk) 18:50, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
"a bureaucracy that operates independently of rules"
Democracy as in rule by the people means that the individual has to submit to the will expressed by the collective. This means that democracy is inherently authoritarian. Amakan (talk • contribs) 00:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Under that definition, any form of government, except anarchism, is authoritarian. As law, as opposed to agreements, require submission and is enforced by force, not reason. [User:rxantos] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rxantos (talk • contribs) 06:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Why exactly is China singled out in this article, and is that one-sided rant really appropriate for wikipedia? Sounds like something from a Falun Gong adherent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 02:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, the paragraph was long. But I'd really like to see other sections just as long. Really, in our modern world of 2012, there are probably about 50 governments which can be viewed as authoritarian, overly so and unnecessarily so. I'd like to have mid-sized paragraphs about any or all of them. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
previous China section
"The government of China is generally considered to be a modern authoritarian government. China is ruled by one party only, known as the Communist Party. The President of the People’s Republic of China in 2012 is Hu Jintao, who has held this position since 2003. However, the president is essentially a figurehead as he enjoys symbolic significance, but is both voted in by the National People’s Congress (China’s parliament) alone and acts according to the decisions made by this single group. The National People’s Congress also holds the exclusive authority to remove the Chinese President from power. Policies in China are created in high-level meetings, in which the general population has no input into the choices that are made for them. The government of China keeps watch over the Chinese internet meticulously, looking for anything that may be considered politically sensitive. They also block major social networking websites such as Facebook and Twitter, as they are concerned that citizens may use these sites to organize public demonstrations. Furthermore, some citizens who have posted information on the Internet that is pro-democratic have been harassed and are sometimes even imprisoned. Another measure that the government of China has taken which many argue infringes on the rights of its citizens is the enforcement of the one-child policy of 1979, which limits each couple who are ethnic Han Chinese living in urban areas to one child. While this was done for purposes of population control, it has led to the killing or abandonment of many female babies (so that the couple may instead have a son to carry on their family name). Also, there have been multiple consequences for parents who have more than one child, including fines, pressure to abort, and forced sterilization."
- "The Election of the President". English.gov.cn. Retrieved 2012-02-02.
- "Profile: China's National People's Congress". BBC News. 2010-03-05. Retrieved 2012-02-02.
- "Status of the President". English.gov.cn. Retrieved 2012-02-02.
- [dead link]
- "China One Child Policy - Overview of the One Child Policy in China". Geography.about.com. 2006-05-17. Retrieved 2012-02-02.
- One thing I used to know from the 1980s was about Guatemala. Anything like a trade union or an agricultural coop, or any dissent, was viewed as unaccepted. And whether the powers-that-be really believed such were "communist," they sure played the label game during the Cold War days to get military funding. And much of what happened was just rank prejudice and squelching of various indigenous groups by the dominant Hispanic culture. And there was a rebel army. So there was some kernel of truth about armend insurrection, but exaggerated and overblown response. The official Guatamalan army became the prime human rights abusers.
- I hope things have improved in Guatamala. I really don't know. I kind of think, things were so bad, can't really have improved that much. But human beings are resilient and can sometimes be quite remarkable.
- Time permitting, we can use sources like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.
- Okay, coming back to China. Well, population-wise, it is the worldest largest country. And for that, if for no other reason, it's worth covering in some detail. Plus, we do have some information.
Tyranny by the Majority
"In politics, an authoritarian government is one in which political authority is concentrated in a small group of politicians."
How does the introductory statement make a distinction between authoritarianism by the majority and authoritarianism by the few?
The statement indicates that authoritarianism only originates through the impetus of internal government.
Authoritarianism is a degree of constrictive government management, but its is often substantiated upon the opinions and attitudes of a demographic.
- GeMiJa, could you maybe point me to some reference material that elaborates on what you've brought up here. I want to make sure that I understand what you're talking about since your comments above are brief while the topic is quite broad. —Zujine|talk 04:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
First phrase nonsense ?!
This is also a form of goverment where you will be slapped unconcious in front of your own momma for not voting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 01:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Biased and Western Point-of-View Article.
This article is quite biased, and apparently seems to categorize any non-Westernized/Democratic state as "authoritarian", which is what the inclusion of monarchies entails. The sections titled "Examples of states which are currently (or frequently) characterized as authoritarian: "Characterized" by whom? I've lived in Saudi Arabia, no one regards the House of Saud as "authoritarian". And how come the Islamic leaders of Iran are regarded as "authoritarian" but not the deposed (and not insignificantly pro-Western) Shah? And why is the "gender" section even here? Does every Wikipedia article have to include a feminist interpretation now? But seeing as how most Wikipedia editors tend to be Westerners I'm sure if I remove something you're just put back in. Because "West is Best" and all that jazz.
Saudi Arabia and Iran are both extremly repressive States, the first one is an absolute Monarchy and the second one is a totalitarian State with pseudo-democractic elements.--22.214.171.124 (talk) 17:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Recep Tayyip Erdoğan
Enough with removing RTE from this article. Like i said in my previous edit summary All those leaders or countries define themselves as democratic. It is the general view thats makes them Authoritarian. In fact RTE has the most references on that list. Please dont edit with POV. Drop that EU candidate or official statements thing. or None of these countries has a formal statement which says the regime is authorian it is a popular opinon. And being an EU candidate doesnt makes you fully democratic. Please stop removing referenced texts
The main reason behind 2013–14 protests in Turkey is the authoritarianism of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan you can check the references on this article. , , ,  elmasmelih (used to be KazekageTR) 12:59, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
- In this regard, I don't think you're not neutral, Melih. We cannot evaluate whether Erdogan's authoritarian, by looking at comments from columnists foreign and biased media reports and reviews after the Gezi Park protests. It can not be decided by looking at the his policy after the protests. That a sufficient number of resources, it does not make reliable. Turkey take place between North Korea, China and Cuba as examples of authoritarian regimes, is just injustice and unacceptable. Also you violated clearly WP:3RR in 24 hours period! – Maurice Flesier (talk) 23:10, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
well mate first Of all biased according to who? cause these media outlets are finest among their collagues. and scondly no matter what, these sources are reliable and i am sure that admins will agree to taht. btw he\she was vandalising the page.
oh yea and also if he wasnt authotorian, why do turkish polls indicate that some people was in The gezi park protests because he was authotarian? kazekagetr 00:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- A small part of sources which indicates Erdoğan's authoritarianism.--Reality 10:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- Melih look at the title: Examples of authoritarian states,this is a topic related to the regime of the countries. Erdogan's personal authoritarianism can not be added to this article and list. Please take a look at the regimes list of countries. Single party regimes: Syria, North Korea, Laos, Vietnam, Cuba, China, Azerbaijan. Theocratic states: Iran. Monarchies: Saudia Arabia, Bahrain, Combodia, Coup d'état governments: Egypt, Burkina Faso. Which regime has adopted by Turkey? There are dozens of politians on that list that should be there before Erdogan. Nursultan Nazarbayev, Islam Karimov, Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedow, Yoweri Museveni, Emomalii Rahmon, Omar al-Bashir, Idriss Déby and more. This controversial subject connect to just Gezi Park protests is not satisfactory and not enough to keep him here.
Its not 'just' avout Gezi park protests, theses protests 'support' that he is authoritarian but not just that, there are also these references from 'reliable' sources. All those references comply with wikipedias reliable source policy. You are violating WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT now mate. And like Reality said. You are here after that tweet. Looks lıke you are trying to finish what those IP vandals started. Also i ve updated all references, now 11 refs are valid and all say that Erdoğan is authoritarian. BTW Turkey is just like Azerbaijan dont you think? You can't talk against gov't or high rate of jailed journasilst or low ranking on World Freedom Index or high corruption. kazekagetr 16:48, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- Recep Tayyip Erdogan is mentioned in "Authoritarianism and democracy" section in this context none of the guys above i.e. Nursultan Nazarbayev... fits to this section since unlike Erdogan they do not claim to have an advanced democracy in their countries. There are objective and reliable sources for his authoritarianism emerged within democracy. Also feel free to add any of the other authoritarian leaders to article if you have reliable sources and he fits to the context. Removing Erdogan is nonsense. --Abbatai 06:58, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Actually Turkey was never a real Democracy, Turkey before Erdogan was a Semi-Democracy at best, except for the time between 1923-1946, in this period Turkey was an authoritiarian regime, the time between 1946 until 1950, in this period Turkey was a Pseudo-Democracy and also the temporary periods of Military Dictatorship.--Anders Sjolfdjord (talk) 17:20, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
China under Mao Zedong
The Southern States of the USA until the late sixties
Very good point mate but we have to find references kazekagetr 07:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)